Search RPD Archives
[rpd] AnyCast assignments - Update
owen at delong.com
Sat Oct 11 12:21:06 UTC 2014
I support removing the single prefix limitation for IPv6. I do not support removing it for IPv4. I believe it to be a reasonable safeguard for scarce addressing.
I agree that the application layer protocols should not be restricted or limited (for one thing, anycast for web is just a bad idea from the word go, so including it is questionable at best), but also, Nishal is right that policy should not restrict innovation if it can be avoided.
> On Oct 10, 2014, at 10:34 AM, Nishal Goburdhan <nishal at controlfreak.co.za> wrote:
>> On 09 Oct 2014, at 5:08 AM, Mark Elkins <mje at posix.co.za> wrote:
>> Hello community,
> hi mark,
>> 3) Proposal
>> AFPUB-2012-V4-001 is modified from the original version to the
>> following version:
>> 1. Summary of the problem being addressed by the policy proposal
>> This proposal allows an organization to receive an IPv4/IPv6
>> allocation or assignment and an AS Number purely for anycast or GPRS
>> Roaming Exchange (GRX) usage.
>> 2. Summary of how this proposal addresses the problem
>> This proposal allows the use of:
>> a. One (1) /24 of IPv4 for anycast services from a PA allocation of
>> an LIR or direct end-user assignment.
>> b. One /48 of IPv6 for anycast services from an IPv6 LIR allocation
>> or direct end-user assignment.
>> c. An AS Number for anycast purposes.
> i'd like some clarification on the (1)x /24.
> specifically, i would like to ensure the following:
> * legitimate operators are able to get resources for anycast; (the existing policy does this already, so nothing needed here, great !)
> * there is no limitation made to AfriNIC allocating _only_ a single block for anycast.
> let me explain the second request.
> the policy, as is worded, is potentially ambiguous. hostmasters _may_ be tempted to say that, as per policy, they have satisfied the requirement to allocate one, and only one prefix for anycast purposes, to an organisation, when, a forward thinking organisation might wish to have more than one anycast cloud. while having one prefix, is obviously better than zero, it would be _wrong_ to limit this to just one anycast cloud.
> so, while the current policy doesn't _disallow_ more than a single allocation, it's not clear (i think) to the hostmaster team, that more than one allocation might be allowed.
> (i guess, the other way of looking at this, is that there is no requirement to _change_ policy if, there is acknowledgement from the hostmaster team that they understand this - perhaps we can get them to comment here. the task of determining valid usage will still be up to the hostmasters of course)
>> AFRINIC staff will consider anycast IPv4/IPv6 blocks assigned to be
>> "fully utilised" by the LIR when considering utilisation for first
>> allocation or for an additional allocation to an LIR.
>> 3. Proposal
>> 3.1 An organization may obtain one (1) /24 IPv4 and/or one (1) /48
>> IPv6 prefix for anycast or GRX purposes from an allocation or an
>> AFRINIC issued direct end-user assignment. An AS Number should also
>> be issued for the same purposes if requested. These resources must
>> be used for the sole purpose of anycasting web or authoritative DNS
>> servers as described in BCP126/RFC 4786
>> (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4786.txt) or for GPRS Roaming Exchange.
>> The IPv4/IPv6 prefixes will count as being fully utilised when an
>> organization applies for additional resources. The utilization
>> criteria that apply to all IPv4 and IPv6 initial allocation or
>> assignment requests shall be waived for anycast assignment requests.
> i would like you to remove the words: "sole purpose of anycasting web or authoritative DNS..." since there are other services that someone might want to anycast, and restricting this to two protocols, is, well...quite limiting ... and, i don't think that policy should limit innovation.
> i think what you likely mean is: "solely for anycast" .. which is subtly different. i suggest:
> "These resources must be used for the sole purposes of providing anycast services".
> (i would even remove the reference to BCP126; that's an operational thing...)
> that aside - i _support_ the change to policy to include IPv6 and an ASN as part of the anycast assignment.
> thanks for fix^H^H^H updating this.
>> 3.2 Blocks used for anycast services cannot be further assigned or
>> sub-allocated. They shall be tagged with the status attribute in the
>> AFRINIC whois service as "ASSIGNED ANYCAST".
>> 4.0 Revision History
>> Version 00 Submitted 2014-10-07 by author.
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
More information about the RPD